Geostrategic Media Political Commentary, Analysis, Security, Defense
Ameera Sami
Economic sanctions have long been touted as a peaceful alternative to military intervention, a tool that allows nations to apply pressure on rogue states without firing a single shot. From curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions to addressing human rights violations in Myanmar, sanctions are often viewed as a diplomatic measure designed to promote peace and stability. Yet, the reality is far more complex. While sanctions can occasionally compel nations to negotiate or alter their behavior, they can also worsen conflicts, devastate civilian populations, and embolden authoritarian regimes. The critical question remains: Do economic sanctions promote peace, or are they a catalyst for further conflict?
The Nature of Economic Sanctions
Economic sanctions involve coercive measures—such as trade embargoes, asset freezes, and financial restrictions—designed to force a country to alter its policies. These measures are often used to address a variety of global concerns, including nuclear proliferation, human rights abuses, and acts of aggression. While the intention is typically to create diplomatic leverage, the outcomes are often unpredictable and vary significantly depending on the context.
Sanctions as a Diplomatic Tool for Peace
A Peaceful Alternative to Military Action
One of the strongest arguments for economic sanctions is that they offer a non-violent means of pressure. Rather than resorting to military force, nations can apply economic leverage to influence policy decisions. The sanctions on Iran, for instance, played a crucial role in bringing Tehran to the negotiating table, resulting in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This deal temporarily halted Iran’s nuclear program without the need for military intervention, demonstrating that economic sanctions, when paired with diplomacy, can achieve significant results.
Confronting Human Rights Violations
Sanctions have also been used to combat egregious human rights abuses. In the 1990s, global sanctions against South Africa were instrumental in dismantling the apartheid regime. By exerting economic pressure, the international community forced the South African government to end its institutionalized racial segregation and discrimination, illustrating that sanctions can contribute to justice and long-term peace.
The Dark Side of Sanctions: Exacerbating Conflict
Humanitarian Crisis and Civilian Suffering
While sanctions are intended to pressure ruling elites, they often have devastating consequences for ordinary citizens. The comprehensive sanctions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War decimated its economy, leading to widespread poverty and a humanitarian catastrophe. The shortages of food, medicine, and basic necessities resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians between 1990 and 2003. Rather than fostering peace, the sanctions fueled resentment against the West and contributed to an environment ripe for radicalization and violence.
Venezuela presents a similar case. U.S. sanctions, aimed at undermining the regime of Nicolás Maduro, have plunged an already fragile economy into deeper crisis. A 2019 report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) estimated that more than 40,000 Venezuelans died between 2017 and 2018 due to lack of access to food and medicine, underscoring the severe humanitarian toll that sanctions can impose on vulnerable populations.
Strengthening the Very Regimes They Target
Sanctions can also have the unintended effect of entrenching the regimes they seek to weaken. Authoritarian leaders often use sanctions to rally domestic support, painting themselves as victims of foreign aggression. This dynamic is evident in North Korea, where decades of sanctions have done little to curb the Kim regime’s nuclear ambitions. Instead, the government has tightened its grip on power, portraying itself as a bulwark against Western imperialism.
The sanctions imposed on Russia following its annexation of Crimea in 2014 have similarly failed to weaken President Vladimir Putin’s hold on power. In fact, the sanctions have reinforced nationalist sentiment, enabling Putin to frame the West as an adversary. Rather than promoting reconciliation, these measures have led to further aggression and strained relations between Russia and the international community.
The Global Impact of Economic Sanctions
Do Sanctions Work?
The effectiveness of sanctions is a subject of ongoing debate. Research by the Peterson Institute for International Economics suggests that sanctions succeed in about one-third of cases. Their success often depends on factors such as the economic resilience of the target nation, the level of international cooperation in enforcement, and the specific objectives being pursued. In cases like South Africa, where the international community acted in unison, sanctions were highly effective. But when sanctions are imposed unilaterally, or when the target country can turn to alternative economic partners (as in the case of Russia or Iran), their impact is significantly diminished.
Alternative Approaches
Given the mixed results of sanctions, it is worth considering alternative strategies. Diplomacy, conditional aid, and engagement can sometimes achieve what sanctions cannot. U.S. diplomatic efforts toward Cuba in the 2010s, for example, demonstrated the potential for dialogue to succeed where decades of economic isolation had failed.
“Smart sanctions,” which target specific individuals or sectors rather than entire economies, offer another alternative. This approach minimizes harm to civilians while putting pressure on key decision-makers. Sanctions against Russian oligarchs, which restrict their access to luxury goods and international banking systems, serve as an example of how targeted measures can be more effective and humane than broad economic warfare.
A Tool of Diplomacy or a Weapon of Destruction?
Economic sanctions occupy a murky space in global diplomacy. They are often promoted as a peaceful tool for resolving international disputes, but their track record is deeply flawed. While sanctions have helped achieve political change in cases like South Africa and Iran, they have also failed spectacularly in places like North Korea, Iraq, and Venezuela, where they have inflicted severe suffering without achieving their stated goals.
Policymakers must weigh the potential benefits and harms of sanctions carefully before wielding them as a foreign policy tool. In some cases, sanctions may be a necessary evil in the pursuit of peace and security. But too often, they serve as a blunt instrument that causes more harm than good, fueling conflict rather than resolving it.
As the world continues to grapple with complex global crises, the debate surrounding sanctions remains unresolved. Are they an essential tool for maintaining international order, or a misguided policy that too often backfires? History shows that the answer is anything but clear.
